It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nuclear jet crash 'could kill millions'

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2004 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Nuclear jet crash 'could kill millions'

Fears that the UK's nuclear plants are vulnerable to a 9/11-style attack or accident are growing. Evidence is emerging that the no-fly zones around nuclear plants are regularly breached by both military and civilian aircraft. And a report for the UK parliament leaked to New Scientist says that such an attack might kill millions.

www.newscientist.com...


**Mod edit: do not copy/paste entire articles from other sources. Per the message at the top of every reply page:
MEMBERS: Do not simply post news articles in the forums without comment. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of current events, please post the first paragraph, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item.

[Edited on 26-5-2004 by Banshee]




posted on May, 26 2004 @ 01:47 PM
link   
well i think you found the real reason all over the world nuclear plants are closing / closed !
it is not because their production is bad but because of the fear what happens when the plant (s) are attacked and damaged beyond repair.
i think the "jodium pills" will not be much help.



posted on May, 26 2004 @ 01:56 PM
link   
They have thought about this.
The 9/11 strike that tried to hit a nuclear power plant (Pennsylvania?) wouldnt have worked. I have watched a video of an F4 jet flying into a concrete wall (To test it's strength) of the same thickness as what you would expect at a nuclear power plant... The wall didnt move, let alone crack. The plane literally disintergrated... This idea was included in the design of the nuclear plants



posted on May, 26 2004 @ 02:16 PM
link   
if the radioactive rods became hit the radio active fall out of them would be a big problem but also the plant could be hit that way the proces went "wild" ! same as the russian plant chernobyl did after an explosion !
the "jetstream" will decide what direction the fall out will go but around each plant will be for sure hig radiationleaks.



posted on May, 26 2004 @ 02:18 PM
link   
You mean the rods that are protected by like 30 feet thick concrete walls, 5 feet thick aluminium/lead walls?
And you mean the ones that are kept in isolation and that are never in contact with each other?

edit:
also the same rods that are designed in such a way that it'd take several hundred kilograms to go supercritical?
The semi-sphere is the most efficient for mass:reflected emissions, that's why we use semi-spheres in nuclear bombs, and long-thin rods in nuclear power plants


[Edited on 26-5-2004 by browha]



posted on May, 26 2004 @ 02:21 PM
link   
I think nuclear plants are protected enough that a plane will not crash into them...



posted on May, 26 2004 @ 02:25 PM
link   
People need to realize that they arent going to build a very expensive nuclear plant and make it that easy to blow up



posted on May, 26 2004 @ 02:28 PM
link   
never say never !

with the right kinetic impactforce the plant can get damage that will produce an enormous problem !

also the angle of attack on the impact plays a great role !
for the twin towers ,for example,it was not steep enough to get the towers in one move down...

[Edited on 26-5-2004 by NOGODSINTHEUNIVERSE]



posted on May, 26 2004 @ 02:31 PM
link   
The nuclear power plant was designed to hold back forces greater than that possibly caused by a plane... If you saw the video I'm talking about you would know what I mean
The F4 was flying like Mach 1... Ke= 1/2 Mv ^ 2..
2x the velocity = 4x the Ke



posted on May, 26 2004 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by browha
The nuclear power plant was designed to hold back forces greater than that possibly caused by a plane... If you saw the video I'm talking about you would know what I mean
The F4 was flying like Mach 1... Ke= 1/2 Mv ^ 2..
2x the velocity = 4x the Ke


the F4 Phantom also has no where near the weight nor mass of a commercial airliner. im not saying if a plane crashed into a reactor it would breach the protective barrier, just that it is a possiblity.



posted on May, 26 2004 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by chrisnolefan

Originally posted by browha
The nuclear power plant was designed to hold back forces greater than that possibly caused by a plane... If you saw the video I'm talking about you would know what I mean
The F4 was flying like Mach 1... Ke= 1/2 Mv ^ 2..
2x the velocity = 4x the Ke


the F4 Phantom also has no where near the weight nor mass of a commercial airliner. im not saying if a plane crashed into a reactor it would breach the protective barrier, just that it is a possiblity.


Mass of an F4 Phantom...20,282kg
Mass of a 757-200...123,600kg.

Assuming an inpact speed of ~244.44m/s (~500mph) here are the differences:

Ke of F4 = 1.23 x 10^13
Ke of 757 = 4.56 x 10 ^ 14

You'll quickly notice that the force of impact of the 757 is something like 30x that of the F4.

Personally, I think we're screwed if a jetliner slams a nuclear power plant, solely based on the numbers.



posted on May, 26 2004 @ 03:38 PM
link   
does anyone have the actual specs for the reactor construction of a typical nuclear reactor. i did a google search but kinda got lost in a bunch of info i wasnt lookin for



posted on May, 26 2004 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Yes, but I believe the flaw is your assumation in speed... The F4 flies faster than that, no?
These things are designed to handle this sort of thing.. the WTCs were designed to handle 747-400 crashes into it (flaws with the heat-proofing material was the problem)



posted on May, 26 2004 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Id really, really.... I mean really hate to say this. But the kinetic forces involved with a large passenger jet going full speed may be enough to cause a system malfunction at a nuke plant. Engineers have miss calculated in the past...

Unfortunately I might have to back NOgod on this one, sigh. Perhaps anti aircraft batteries should be installed around Nuke plants. Its probably bad idea, and a little humorous to some.



posted on May, 26 2004 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Wouldn't you think that such a large building, as power plants are, could never be sucessfully tageted with plain because of the accuracy needed to get to the dangerous material. What Browha has explained seems plausable, there is alot of concrete there that would have to be damaged quite a bit. Don't you think it's just more government scare stories, like Osama bin laden, remember him?



posted on May, 26 2004 @ 04:18 PM
link   
I hope so , we are assulted everyday by some new scare tatic. But causion is still a good idea.



posted on May, 26 2004 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Certainly in Britian the idea of AA guns around Nuclear power plants was seriously considered by Mi5
But I will guarantee you, no 747 would be able to crash into a nuclear power plant and set off a chain reaction.


cma

posted on May, 26 2004 @ 04:30 PM
link   
A nuclear jet could kill alot of people, but usually jets, espically like that, do not fly over large areas like that. Also, those nuclear fission generators arn't like the "Charnoble" ones.



posted on May, 26 2004 @ 04:33 PM
link   
We are not discussing a jet fueled by nuclear engines.... No such thing exists yet, to my knowledge.
Chernoble was a nuclear fission plant as well.. Unless you know more specific technically details I dont?
We're discussing crashing a jet into a nuclear power plant to cause a chain reaction


cma

posted on May, 26 2004 @ 04:37 PM
link   
there are different perportions and reactions created in nuclear reactions.
also, there are not any approved plans for potable, espically moving, espically FLYING, nuclear engines!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join